<u who="nm0638"> you may remember last time <pause dur="0.2"/> we were talking about some <pause dur="0.3"/> key aspects of natural resource use <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> we said that we would look at the element of scarcity <pause dur="0.7"/> we looked at time and dynamics and the effect that <pause dur="0.6"/> those things have <pause dur="0.2"/> on resource use <pause dur="0.9"/> we looked at technology <pause dur="0.5"/> we spent a few minutes talking about property rights <pause dur="0.4"/> and then we had a bit of a recap <pause dur="0.4"/> looking at various sources of uncertainty <pause dur="1.0"/> # surrounding our decisions concerning the use of natural resources <pause dur="0.4"/> over time <pause dur="2.7"/> we return <pause dur="0.5"/> to the issue of scarcity <pause dur="6.2"/> and we started off by saying that really the <pause dur="0.3"/> the fundamental <pause dur="0.2"/> resource use issue <pause dur="0.7"/> is that we have a rapidly rising <pause dur="0.5"/> global population <pause dur="1.6"/> increasing <pause dur="0.2"/> economic activity <pause dur="0.2"/> by that population <pause dur="1.3"/> resulting in a declining <pause dur="0.2"/> resource base <pause dur="0.8"/> and an increased <pause dur="0.3"/> production <pause dur="0.3"/> of wastes <pause dur="0.6"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> an increased burden if you like on the environment <pause dur="0.3"/> to assimilate <pause dur="0.2"/> those wastes <pause dur="1.5"/> so that's where we left it <pause dur="0.3"/> last time <pause dur="1.3"/> this time i want to continue to explore this issue of scarcity a little bit more <pause dur="0.5"/> and

then to go on to <pause dur="0.4"/> develop a very simple framework <pause dur="0.7"/> # where we can actually try and determine the optimum <pause dur="0.3"/> resource use <pause dur="0.6"/> # over time <pause dur="7.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> you may remember at the start of <pause dur="0.8"/> last week <pause dur="3.2"/> where we were reminding ourselves of <pause dur="0.3"/> the role of economists <pause dur="0.5"/> in <pause dur="1.1"/> the environment and resource use <pause dur="0.5"/> we said well this is <pause dur="0.5"/> the simple view of the world that economists have <pause dur="1.6"/> we look at resources as inputs to the production system they're transformed <pause dur="0.3"/> into goods and services that we want to consume <pause dur="0.7"/> and we said that really that was a rather inadequate framework <pause dur="0.4"/> when we start to want to consider environmental issues <pause dur="1.0"/> within economics <pause dur="3.0"/> because what we have <pause dur="1.8"/> in fact <pause dur="0.6"/> is a whole series of waste products <pause dur="0.3"/> produced <pause dur="0.3"/> not only by the production system itself <pause dur="0.8"/> but <trunc>b</trunc> by the very process <pause dur="0.4"/> of getting resources for instance out of the ground from mining resources <pause dur="0.7"/> and from the process of consumption <pause dur="0.2"/> we produce all sorts of wastes <pause dur="0.3"/> from these three <pause dur="0.2"/> elements <pause dur="1.0"/> associated with the production process <pause dur="2.4"/> and we have no economic

framework within which we can <pause dur="0.2"/> directly <pause dur="1.1"/> consider <pause dur="0.3"/> the problem of producing wastes <pause dur="0.2"/> we noted last week that what we called these things were externalities <pause dur="0.4"/> negative externalities <pause dur="0.3"/> problems that lie outside effectively <pause dur="0.3"/> of our normal economic framework <pause dur="0.4"/> and which somehow now we need to take account of <pause dur="0.2"/> because these things are causing us problems <pause dur="9.4"/> okay look a little bit of science mixed in with economics here <pause dur="2.2"/> the first law of <trunc>thermo</trunc> thermodynamics <pause dur="1.5"/> really just says that energy and matter <pause dur="0.6"/> can't be destroyed <pause dur="4.3"/> energy and matter <pause dur="0.2"/> can't be destroyed <pause dur="4.6"/> so that ultimately the resources that you use <pause dur="0.6"/> will end up <pause dur="0.2"/> being <pause dur="0.2"/> various types <pause dur="0.3"/> of different waste <pause dur="34.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="10"/> one thing that we know that we can do <pause dur="1.2"/> for many natural resources <pause dur="0.8"/> is to actually recycle some of these wastes <pause dur="0.6"/> and get back some of the resource input <pause dur="0.3"/> that we can then use again <pause dur="1.0"/> so if we want to start to incorporate those elements into our simple framework <pause dur="0.2"/> it might look something like this <pause dur="4.2"/> so here's

our resource inputs <pause dur="0.5"/> the production process <pause dur="0.3"/> consumption that's our standard <pause dur="0.3"/> economic model <pause dur="3.0"/> we note <pause dur="2.3"/> the production of wastes <pause dur="0.2"/> from this process <pause dur="1.8"/> but now we've added <pause dur="0.2"/> another element <pause dur="2.4"/> that we can actually recycle some of these wastes <pause dur="2.3"/> to produce more resources <pause dur="4.0"/> there are two things that this diagram <pause dur="1.3"/> takes account of <pause dur="2.1"/> in addition <pause dur="3.6"/> one is the second law of thermodynamics <pause dur="6.1"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> which just says that resources <pause dur="0.2"/> are used entropically <pause dur="0.8"/> in other words they're dissipated <pause dur="2.0"/> so think of <pause dur="0.3"/> the use of <pause dur="0.2"/> oil say <pause dur="0.4"/> fossil fuel like oil <pause dur="2.3"/> it has loads of different <pause dur="0.5"/> outputs doesn't it <pause dur="2.2"/> it produces energy that we want yes but it produces loads of other emissions in all sorts of <pause dur="0.2"/> of other by-products C-O-two and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> and you can't capture those back <pause dur="2.0"/> combine them again <pause dur="0.2"/> and get the fossil fuel back the oil back again can you that's obvious <pause dur="1.4"/> resources are used entropically they get dissipated some dissipated into the environment and so on <pause dur="0.4"/> so this <pause dur="0.3"/> simple <pause dur="0.3"/> formula here is just saying <pause dur="0.2"/> that you can never recapture <pause dur="0.3"/>

however good you are at recycling your waste <pause dur="0.5"/> you can never recapture the whole amount <pause dur="0.5"/> of the resource again <pause dur="1.0"/> which is pretty obvious i guess <pause dur="1.3"/> and that's what this diagram takes account of <pause dur="0.4"/> because here it says look <pause dur="0.2"/> however good your recycling <pause dur="0.6"/> some of these wastes are going to end up in the environment <pause dur="1.4"/> into the into the sink if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> of the environment <pause dur="0.2"/> we talk about environmental sinks <pause dur="2.0"/> the other thing this diagram takes account of <pause dur="0.5"/> is the fact that recycling itself <pause dur="0.8"/> is a resource using activity <pause dur="2.1"/> okay recycling itself <pause dur="0.2"/> is a resource using activity <pause dur="0.3"/> which is why we've got this red dotted line <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah showing that there's a resource input into the recycling process itself <pause dur="2.3"/> and occasionally you get <pause dur="0.2"/> crazy situations <pause dur="0.8"/> where recycling is such a great idea people think <pause dur="0.3"/> that they actually end up using more resources in the recycling process than they're actually saving <pause dur="22.0"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> any questions about that <pause dur="6.2"/> okay let's have a a brief and very simplistic look because

these two sessions are <pause dur="0.2"/> introductory sessions for this course <pause dur="0.5"/> a brief and and rather simplistic look <pause dur="0.5"/> at <pause dur="0.4"/> natural resources and their characteristics <pause dur="2.6"/> and very very briefly <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm going to look at <pause dur="0.7"/> air land minerals water <pause dur="0.4"/> ecological resources <pause dur="0.6"/> and i probably won't look at <pause dur="0.2"/> # solar power or or <pause dur="0.5"/> sun <pause dur="0.8"/> to any great extent at all <pause dur="13.0"/> so if we start looking at air first <pause dur="7.1"/> i said it was going to be simplistic why is air important to us well first of all it's a source of nutrients <pause dur="1.6"/> for plant and animal species <pause dur="3.0"/> secondly it's a sink for pollutants <pause dur="0.6"/> we pump all sorts of stuff into the air don't we use it as a sink for pollutants <pause dur="2.3"/> it's important for atmospheric protection in the climate system <pause dur="4.7"/> it's an important energy resource <pause dur="2.4"/> wind power <pause dur="2.1"/> and it's <trunc>im</trunc> an important spatial medium to state the obvious <pause dur="7.7"/> and these figures aren't really worth getting down because they're just <pause dur="0.4"/> illustrative <pause dur="0.5"/> and i've already given you <pause dur="0.3"/> some ideas of reading <pause dur="0.3"/> and the United Nations # Environment Programme website

where you can get <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> data like this probably more up to date data now as well <pause dur="4.0"/> but i just picked out some pollution figures <pause dur="1.5"/> for some of the major cities <pause dur="0.3"/> of the world <pause dur="2.0"/> so we've got London Sydney Montreal New York Beijing <pause dur="0.4"/> and Delhi <pause dur="2.9"/> and this first column <pause dur="2.3"/> looks at the number of days of the year <pause dur="0.5"/> when sulphur dioxide levels <pause dur="0.4"/> are above <pause dur="0.9"/> a certain limit <pause dur="2.1"/> think that's a hundred-and-fifty micrograms per metre <pause dur="0.3"/> cubed <pause dur="3.1"/> and we know that above that limit <pause dur="0.7"/> it will <pause dur="0.5"/> have <pause dur="2.0"/> a negative effect on human health <pause dur="0.7"/> on the <pause dur="0.8"/> far <pause dur="0.2"/> column here <pause dur="0.3"/> we've got the level of <pause dur="0.6"/> particulate matter <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah particles in the air <pause dur="1.5"/> # again the number of days that they're over a certain <pause dur="0.3"/> critical level and again <pause dur="0.2"/> that critical level we know <pause dur="0.4"/> will cause health problems <pause dur="0.3"/> in the population <pause dur="1.6"/> so you can see in London over the time that this survey was <pause dur="0.2"/> # taken <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> out of the year seventeen <pause dur="0.2"/> seventeen days <pause dur="0.4"/> in London where S-O-two levels were too high eleven in Sydney <pause dur="0.4"/> thirty-two Montreal twenty-two New York <pause dur="0.3"/> a hundred-and-fifty-seven <pause dur="0.2"/> in

Beijing <pause dur="0.7"/> forty-nine <pause dur="0.2"/> in Delhi <pause dur="2.2"/> so not surprisingly <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> a city like Beijing <pause dur="0.5"/> # far more polluted than a city <pause dur="0.5"/> like <pause dur="0.3"/> Sydney <pause dur="0.5"/> in terms of sulphur dioxide <pause dur="0.2"/> at least <pause dur="0.4"/> and in fact when you start to look at particulate matter <pause dur="1.1"/> and these are particles that will have all sorts of deposits <pause dur="0.2"/> attached to them <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> some will be <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> cancer causing <pause dur="1.0"/> # chemicals et cetera et cetera have all sorts of impacts <pause dur="0.3"/> on human health <pause dur="0.5"/> # lung diseases <pause dur="0.8"/> bronchitis <pause dur="1.0"/> all these sorts of things <pause dur="0.4"/> three-hundred-and-thirty-eight days <pause dur="0.8"/> nearly every day of the year <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> over the time this survey was taken <pause dur="0.3"/> in Beijing and Delhi <pause dur="0.3"/> were these particulate matter days <pause dur="0.2"/> over that critical limit <pause dur="3.0"/> and the U-N has worked out then that over six-<pause dur="0.5"/>hundred-million people <pause dur="0.4"/> live in cities where the sulphur dioxide level <pause dur="0.2"/> is having a bad effect on their health <pause dur="2.5"/> and one-and-a-quarter-billion people <pause dur="1.0"/> are in cities with unacceptable particulate matter <pause dur="2.5"/> so there's a lot of people <pause dur="0.3"/> living in <pause dur="0.6"/> an environment <pause dur="1.1"/> an air environment <pause dur="0.5"/> that is pretty bad for their health <pause dur="5.2"/>

okay <pause dur="12.7"/> so those figures were taken out of the World Resources <pause dur="0.5"/> book that i showed you last last week <pause dur="10.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="8"/> again as part of our introduction let's have a quick look at land <pause dur="0.2"/> as a resource <pause dur="5.4"/> again obviously land an important spatial entity that we use to build on et cetera et cetera <pause dur="0.3"/> an important medium <pause dur="0.9"/> for example for crop growth <pause dur="1.0"/> an important source of <pause dur="0.2"/> other natural resources mineral resources <pause dur="0.5"/> and so on <pause dur="1.2"/> and again <pause dur="0.6"/> it's a sink for pollutants <pause dur="9.7"/> so in terms of its value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> what are the important characteristics of land <pause dur="1.3"/> what sorts of <pause dur="0.9"/> characteristics attributes of land are important to us <pause dur="0.9"/> any ideas <pause dur="8.3"/> yeah </u> <u who="sf0639" trans="overlap"> it's in fixed supply </u> <pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> it's in fixed supply and that's sure that's the economist in you <pause dur="0.3"/> responding there isn't it <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay it's in fixed supply <pause dur="0.3"/> but what attributes what characteristics <pause dur="2.2"/> mean that land is either very valuable to us <pause dur="0.3"/> or not very valuable to us <pause dur="2.5"/> or very useful to us or not very useful to us <pause dur="1.1"/> yeah </u> <u who="sf0640" trans="overlap"> fertility </u> <pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> sorry </u> <pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0640" trans="pause"> fertility </u> <u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/>

okay fertility level of fertility in the soil <pause dur="0.5"/> anything else</u> <pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sm0641" trans="pause"> whether it's flat or kind of steep and slopey</u><u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay so the topography of of the land yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> anything else</u> <pause dur="7.7"/> <u who="sm0642" trans="pause"> climate and microclimate </u> <u who="nm0638" trans="latching"> yeah okay climate <pause dur="2.5"/> so climate topography <pause dur="0.6"/> altitude these things <pause dur="1.6"/> are are linked of course <pause dur="1.6"/> # soil you mentioned <pause dur="0.2"/> anything else </u> <pause dur="11.3"/> <u who="sm0643" trans="pause"> its geography to other <pause dur="0.2"/> compared to other sources </u> <pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> so its location <pause dur="0.3"/> is going to be important <pause dur="0.6"/> whether it's located near <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> another <pause dur="0.2"/> # important natural resource like a water resource <pause dur="0.4"/> like a river or the sea or whatever for instance <pause dur="1.3"/> and of course property rights <pause dur="3.2"/> important for all resources we said <pause dur="2.4"/> but particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> associated with with land as a resource <pause dur="4.5"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> and again i've just <pause dur="2.9"/> picked out a few <pause dur="0.2"/> figures <pause dur="2.4"/> looking at land use across the world <pause dur="2.2"/> so looking at <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the percentage of crop land pasture land forest <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and wilderness which is quite interesting <pause dur="0.5"/> throughout the world <pause dur="1.2"/> so not surprisingly <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> Europe <pause dur="1.4"/> thirty per cent of Europe is <pause dur="0.2"/> down to crops <pause dur="0.7"/> eighteen per cent to pasture

thirty-three per cent to forest <pause dur="0.6"/> # and only four per cent <pause dur="1.9"/> is total wilderness <pause dur="0.4"/> so nineteen per cent will be <pause dur="0.5"/> land that's built on and <pause dur="0.3"/> all other land <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> including swamp <pause dur="0.4"/> desert <pause dur="0.4"/> et cetera <pause dur="3.0"/> so if you compare Europe <pause dur="2.7"/> with a country <pause dur="1.5"/> well with an area rather rather rather a region such as South America <pause dur="0.9"/> here we've got relatively little <pause dur="0.3"/> crop land overall eight per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> quite a lot of <pause dur="0.2"/> pasture <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah a lot of range <pause dur="0.2"/> management twenty-seven per cent <pause dur="0.6"/> lot of forest fifty-two per cent we know there's a lot <pause dur="0.6"/> important <pause dur="0.2"/> # forest resources in South America <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> quite a lot of wilderness too twenty-four per cent <pause dur="1.5"/> i think the U-N classified wilderness <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> as an area <pause dur="0.2"/> that had no signs of man's activities at all <pause dur="0.5"/> so there's no roads no habitations <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> no <trunc>teleph</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> telecommunications or or anything <pause dur="0.6"/> so no no sign of their <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>o</trunc> of man's input at all <pause dur="4.4"/> and here's a quite an interesting contrast here for the U-S and Canada <pause dur="0.8"/> which have <pause dur="0.3"/> totally different <pause dur="0.2"/> figures <pause dur="2.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> U-S <trunc>r</trunc> <trunc>r</trunc> relatively population <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>dense<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.3"/>

compared with <pause dur="0.3"/> with Canada <pause dur="0.6"/> # so Canada <pause dur="0.2"/> sixty-five per cent <pause dur="0.8"/> of Canada is classified as total wilderness but of course a lot of those areas are very very <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>cold<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> areas <pause dur="2.0"/> in the far north <pause dur="4.4"/> okay so a a global idea of <pause dur="0.2"/> of land use i thought those figures might be <pause dur="0.5"/> useful to get things into perspective into context <pause dur="7.1"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> and while we're talking about forestry <pause dur="0.8"/> i just <pause dur="0.5"/> dug out a few figures on <pause dur="0.2"/> on forestry <pause dur="0.7"/> that might be interesting <pause dur="3.1"/> don't know whether we can see this but i'll <pause dur="0.4"/> talk you through it anyway <pause dur="5.7"/> a diagram here just showing the area of closed forests cleared annually <pause dur="0.7"/> in various tropical countries in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.9"/> i've got some nineteen-nineties figures to see how things have <pause dur="0.5"/> changed in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="2.4"/> so closed forests where there's a where there's a closed canopy <pause dur="0.7"/> over the top <pause dur="1.8"/> so you can see for instance <pause dur="0.6"/> that throughout the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.5"/> Brazil was <pause dur="0.2"/> clearing over two per cent <pause dur="0.3"/> of its forest closed forest area <pause dur="0.2"/> every year <pause dur="4.0"/> yeah so if you carried on at that sort of rate

then <pause dur="0.6"/> you can see <pause dur="0.6"/> that fifty or sixty <pause dur="0.2"/> years and you've virtually cleared the whole lot if you carried on at that rate <pause dur="0.2"/> depending on replanting of course <pause dur="0.7"/> India four-point-one per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> every year <pause dur="0.5"/> of closed forest <pause dur="0.7"/> Costa Rica here <pause dur="0.3"/> seven-point-six per cent of its closed forest being cleared <pause dur="0.2"/> every year in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="1.1"/> so you can see that deforestation was <pause dur="1.7"/> maybe still is we'll see <pause dur="0.5"/> # a real problem <pause dur="0.3"/> certainly up until the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.8"/> so what's been done about that since <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="0.5"/> these are updated figures sorry they're a bit scruffy <pause dur="7.1"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> this is for the nineteen-ninety to ninety-five period <pause dur="0.4"/> when in South America <pause dur="0.9"/> well it we only had Brazil before <pause dur="0.2"/> # two-point-two per cent but South America overall <pause dur="0.5"/> # losing at just <pause dur="0.3"/> point-five of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> one half of one per cent <pause dur="0.4"/> every year <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> zero-point-five per cent <pause dur="0.5"/> a year <pause dur="0.2"/> Asia <pause dur="0.2"/> zero-point-seven per cent a year <pause dur="0.2"/> Central America still <pause dur="0.3"/> # relatively <pause dur="0.4"/> # rapid compared with other regions one-point-three per cent a year <pause dur="0.3"/> but nothing like the

seven-point-six per cent that it was <pause dur="0.4"/> # back in the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="1.5"/> Africa <pause dur="0.4"/> point-seven per cent Europe is actually increasing <pause dur="0.5"/> its forest area <pause dur="0.2"/> slightly <pause dur="0.4"/> point-three per cent <pause dur="0.4"/> so these are total figures <pause dur="0.3"/> they take account of <pause dur="0.2"/> afforestation <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>a</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> as well <pause dur="0.2"/> so they're not directly comparable <pause dur="0.5"/> but certainly <pause dur="0.4"/> countries <pause dur="0.5"/> areas of the world <pause dur="0.2"/> have taken action <pause dur="0.5"/> because <trunc>y</trunc> you know to try and slow down the rate of deforestation <pause dur="0.9"/> but at a global level <pause dur="1.0"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> the net effect is still <pause dur="0.4"/> that we are losing trees on the planet <pause dur="0.3"/> at a rate of around point-three per cent <pause dur="0.6"/> # a year <pause dur="10.0"/> we've got two other resource types that i want to look at <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> sorry three other <pause dur="0.5"/> fairly briefly <pause dur="0.5"/> the next is <pause dur="0.8"/> a quick look at mineral resources <pause dur="12.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="9"/> and one simple classification of mineral resources <pause dur="0.5"/> might be into whether they are metallic or non-metallic <pause dur="3.2"/> so the metallic resources we're talking about <pause dur="0.3"/> relatively abundant <pause dur="0.8"/> resources such as <pause dur="0.3"/> iron iron ore <pause dur="1.2"/> and of course there are <trunc>relativis</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> relatively scarce ones

such as copper <pause dur="0.6"/> gold and so on <pause dur="3.4"/> on the non-metallic side <pause dur="1.2"/> we can look at the different uses to which non-metallic resources are put <pause dur="0.4"/> so we can classify them into for instance <pause dur="0.2"/> whether they're used for <pause dur="0.3"/> chemical uses <pause dur="0.6"/> of one sort and another <pause dur="0.7"/> given the example of nitrates <pause dur="3.3"/> whether they're used for building purposes <pause dur="1.1"/> clay <pause dur="0.4"/> cement <pause dur="0.4"/> sand <pause dur="3.1"/> and of course the important fossil fuels <pause dur="0.8"/> that are used to produce energy <pause dur="1.9"/> like oil <pause dur="0.2"/> and coal <pause dur="11.0"/> and so we're when we're looking at this issue of scarcity <pause dur="1.7"/> it's a fairly relative term isn't it <pause dur="0.7"/> and i've got some figures here that i thought were interesting <pause dur="0.7"/> and i haven't updated them <pause dur="1.6"/> because i haven't # managed to get hold of <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> comparable data <pause dur="1.2"/> i wanted to update them to ninety-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> and they didn't actually produce <pause dur="0.3"/> comparable data so i so i couldn't do that <pause dur="1.0"/> but although this data is over ten years old it still still makes the point <pause dur="0.4"/> it looks at <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of major region <pause dur="1.4"/> in terms of production and consumption <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.4"/> major regions in the world <pause dur="0.2"/> and

it looks at the world total <pause dur="1.9"/> the interesting thing to look at <pause dur="0.8"/> are these two figures <pause dur="0.2"/> the reserves and the reserve base <pause dur="0.8"/> and i think this is a very <pause dur="0.2"/> useful <pause dur="0.5"/> way of thinking about <pause dur="0.2"/> the scarcity <pause dur="0.3"/> of a resource <pause dur="0.4"/> it looks at the life-years <pause dur="0.6"/> left <pause dur="0.2"/> of the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> at current rates of consumption <pause dur="4.6"/> so of reserves that are at the moment <pause dur="0.3"/> economically viable <pause dur="1.3"/> to actually mine <pause dur="1.1"/> in nineteen-eighty-eight there were a hundred-and-sixty-seven years worth <pause dur="0.4"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.9"/> left in the world <pause dur="2.2"/> but there are other reserves that we know about that at the moment or at least in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> weren't economically viable <pause dur="1.2"/> to mine <pause dur="0.6"/> and if you included those all known <pause dur="0.4"/> reserves <pause dur="1.7"/> then there's over two-hundred years two-hundred-and-thirty-six years worth <pause dur="1.2"/> of iron ore <pause dur="0.3"/> in the world <pause dur="1.3"/> but it could cost you quite a lot to get it <pause dur="0.3"/> all of it <pause dur="4.6"/> and the smudgy question that i had written down here was <pause dur="0.3"/> to what extent did these figures take account of recycling <pause dur="1.8"/> and i didn't find the answer to that i'm afraid <pause dur="0.2"/> from the U-N

here's a different <pause dur="0.2"/> resource <pause dur="2.3"/> again the only figures that you might want to take down in your notes are these <trunc>life</trunc> <pause dur="0.8"/> # life-year figures <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> here we can see with <trunc>z</trunc> with zinc <pause dur="2.3"/> a relatively scarce <pause dur="1.0"/> metallic <pause dur="0.2"/> mineral <pause dur="3.4"/> total known reserves <pause dur="0.8"/> regardless of how much it costs us to get the stuff <pause dur="0.5"/> out of the ground <pause dur="0.3"/> only forty-two years <pause dur="0.4"/> in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="1.5"/> and only half of that <pause dur="0.4"/> were actually economically viable <pause dur="0.9"/> to mine in nineteen-eighty-eight <pause dur="0.2"/> just twenty-one years <pause dur="1.7"/> so in terms of relative <pause dur="0.3"/> scarcity <pause dur="0.7"/> # zinc a relatively <pause dur="0.4"/> scarce mineral resource <pause dur="0.4"/> compared with <pause dur="0.4"/> iron ore <pause dur="0.9"/> fairly obviously <pause dur="2.7"/> and what i was particularly interested in is finding out <pause dur="0.5"/> the estimation of this figure today ten years on <pause dur="1.8"/> does that really mean today that we have <pause dur="0.4"/> less than ten years <pause dur="0.4"/> worth of reserves of zinc left <pause dur="3.3"/> if i can find the figure <pause dur="0.2"/> i i will <pause dur="0.6"/> i'll let you know <pause dur="20.9"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="26"/> just a few other <pause dur="0.2"/> quick <pause dur="0.8"/> illustrative figures <pause dur="0.8"/> on life-years <pause dur="1.8"/> you won't be able to see all this but i will # <pause dur="0.5"/>

point out <pause dur="0.6"/> the interesting bit <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at fossil fuels <pause dur="2.1"/> just quickly running through here <pause dur="0.9"/> looking at the life-years <pause dur="0.5"/> left <pause dur="3.0"/> again in nineteen-eighty-eight looking at <pause dur="1.6"/> current levels then <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # consumption <pause dur="1.3"/> looking at oil <pause dur="0.9"/> just ten years worth in North America apparently <pause dur="0.9"/> over fifty years in Latin America <pause dur="0.7"/> Middle East they couldn't even estimate it they just put a hundred years plus in the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>Middle East<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="1.2"/> lucky old Middle East <pause dur="8.1"/> so a relatively scarce resource certainly <pause dur="0.6"/> for North America <pause dur="2.1"/> and Western Europe here <pause dur="2.0"/> what about natural gas <pause dur="0.2"/> again North America fourteen years Western Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> thirty-four years <pause dur="0.9"/> # Middle East again a hundred plus years Africa a hundred plus years <pause dur="0.9"/> so the world totals at the bottom here <pause dur="0.3"/> forty-one years worth of <pause dur="1.3"/> # reserves of oil <pause dur="0.7"/> global oil reserves <pause dur="1.5"/> fifty-eight years worth of natural gas <pause dur="0.2"/> apparently <pause dur="1.1"/> and when you look at coal <pause dur="1.4"/> we've got over two-hundred <pause dur="0.2"/> years worth of coal reserves in the in in the world so coal <pause dur="0.2"/> a relatively abundant resource <pause dur="0.4"/> compared

with <pause dur="0.7"/> oil and natural gas <pause dur="5.5"/> so in Western Europe again we've got over two-hundred years worth of <pause dur="0.7"/> coal reserves <pause dur="0.7"/> Africa's got <pause dur="0.8"/> three-hundred-and-fifty <pause dur="0.3"/> years worth <pause dur="0.5"/> and so on <pause dur="0.7"/> relatively abundant <pause dur="12.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="30"/> sorry <pause dur="5.9"/> so that was our quick look into into minerals <pause dur="6.8"/> let's have an even quicker look at water <pause dur="1.3"/> as a resource <pause dur="3.8"/> and if you haven't done this exercise before <pause dur="1.3"/> it's quite illuminating <pause dur="0.9"/> write down all the <pause dur="0.5"/> the uses <pause dur="0.7"/> all the reasons why water is valuable to us <pause dur="0.7"/> all the uses for water <pause dur="1.7"/> what do we use water for <pause dur="0.8"/> and all the reasons why it might be valuable to us <pause dur="7.8"/> we'll see what we've got in a couple of minutes </u><pause dur="1:30.8"/> <event desc="doing task set" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1:30"/><u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay what have we got who wants to start us off <pause dur="2.8"/> anyone uses of water </u><pause dur="2.0"/> <u who="sf0644" trans="pause"> energy </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> energy </u><u who="sf0644" trans="latching"> yeah </u> <pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="2.5"/> we'll come on to that in a minute </u> <pause dur="1.4"/> <u who="sm0645" trans="pause"> drinking </u> <pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> yes thank you for stating the obvious one first on my list <pause dur="0.2"/> yeah okay <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> i've called it potable supplies drinking water supplies <pause dur="0.5"/> because of course in in many countries certainly in this country <pause dur="0.4"/> we use drinking quality

yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="2.3"/> anything else <pause dur="0.2"/> well i suppose that is the sort of category i was thinking of actually <pause dur="0.7"/> various industrial uses <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> whole load of industrial uses from cooling to <pause dur="0.6"/> all sorts of things <pause dur="5.7"/> okay you mentioned irrigation we've got that hydro-electric power <pause dur="0.5"/> # transport <pause dur="1.2"/> as well as recreation i've included <pause dur="0.8"/> # sort of landscape <pause dur="0.2"/> amenity value <pause dur="2.2"/> these things are all linked <pause dur="4.1"/> anything else <pause dur="2.4"/> we've had food production <pause dur="8.5"/> anyone got anything else on their list that we haven't <pause dur="0.5"/> had </u><pause dur="2.8"/> <u who="sm0652" trans="pause"> it's life-sustaining <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/></u> <u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> yeah yeah i think that's quite an important thing </u><u who="sm0652" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> to put down so it yeah <pause dur="0.5"/> it's life-sustaining <pause dur="0.3"/> i've got sort of habitat and ecological value <pause dur="0.3"/> and this smudgy bit <pause dur="0.2"/> just talks about biological cycles which is your point <pause dur="2.3"/> yeah it's a it's crucial to biological cycles isn't it <pause dur="0.8"/> and it's important for habitat <pause dur="0.3"/> ecological value <pause dur="2.0"/> i know a lot of these things are <pause dur="0.2"/> are linked <pause dur="0.4"/> you mentioned food production <pause dur="2.0"/> as well as that of course <pause dur="0.7"/> it can be an important source of <pause dur="0.2"/>

minerals <pause dur="5.6"/> it's an important sink for pollutants <pause dur="0.8"/> and linked to the biological cycles bit <pause dur="0.5"/> of course it's important <pause dur="0.3"/> to climate system <pause dur="2.0"/> and that's not an exhaustive list i'm sure you can think of <pause dur="0.2"/> of other things <pause dur="2.0"/> so it's a pretty valuable resource to us isn't it a pretty useful resource <pause dur="9.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="14"/> we'll stop for a a quick coffee break in a minute but before we do that <pause dur="3.7"/> just one area of use here which i thought might be useful to look at <pause dur="0.4"/> and that's # <pause dur="0.4"/> irrigation <pause dur="1.3"/> so here we're looking at fresh water withdrawals by region <pause dur="0.4"/> we're looking at <pause dur="0.2"/> figures for the nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> projections for <pause dur="0.3"/> this year two-thousand <pause dur="2.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> because the <pause dur="0.3"/> the diagram didn't have that i've just coloured in <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> the proportions that are used for different uses <pause dur="1.2"/> so I-R is the red is irrigation <pause dur="0.7"/> I-N is what's used for industrial purposes <pause dur="0.4"/> and D <pause dur="0.2"/> is what's used for domestic <pause dur="1.0"/> purposes <pause dur="2.6"/> so in Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> most water is used for industry <pause dur="0.6"/> followed by irrigation <pause dur="0.4"/> followed by domestic purposes <pause dur="1.8"/> not surprisingly in Asia the vast

quantity of water is used for irrigation <pause dur="0.4"/> with a relatively small amount used for industry <pause dur="0.3"/> and domestic purposes <pause dur="3.2"/> and so on you can see the figures for yourself <pause dur="1.0"/> what's noticeable <pause dur="0.6"/> is that <pause dur="2.4"/> over the nineteen-eighties to two-thousand <pause dur="0.7"/> period <pause dur="0.8"/> there <pause dur="1.3"/> has been <pause dur="0.6"/> a pretty <pause dur="1.1"/> big increase <pause dur="0.4"/> in the amount of <pause dur="0.2"/> of water used for <pause dur="1.1"/> these various purposes <pause dur="2.5"/> again putting even greater demands on the resource base <pause dur="2.2"/> yeah remember the diagram we had increasing population <pause dur="0.3"/> increasing economic activity this is these are all <pause dur="0.3"/> signs of that <pause dur="1.0"/> and the stresses and strains that that that places on resource use <pause dur="0.4"/> on resources <pause dur="5.8"/> okay finally just something to think about <pause dur="0.2"/> i thought i'd get some pollution figures out <pause dur="1.5"/> and i i just hit on <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/> two little <pause dur="0.5"/> figures as being illustrative <pause dur="3.2"/> okay <pause dur="2.3"/> sorry <pause dur="2.4"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> and again <trunc>the</trunc> these are late nineteen-eighties figures <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="2.1"/> this is looking at faecal coliform bacteria in the water <pause dur="0.9"/> so this is <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at the levels of these bacteria <pause dur="2.7"/> per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="2.2"/> yeah so faecal coliform

bacteria coming from <pause dur="0.7"/> faeces <pause dur="2.9"/> for instance <pause dur="2.5"/> so in the U-K <pause dur="0.5"/> looking at the River Exe <pause dur="0.2"/> which is around <pause dur="0.6"/> Exeter <pause dur="1.6"/> way <pause dur="2.3"/> per <pause dur="0.9"/> hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.7"/> there are five-hundred-and-fifty <pause dur="0.6"/> of these bacteria <pause dur="0.5"/> per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.4"/> yeah <pause dur="3.0"/> but if you looked at the Sabarmati <pause dur="1.1"/> in India <pause dur="0.4"/> and i don't know whether that's a system or a river i've no idea what that is <pause dur="1.5"/> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> then you are looking at <pause dur="0.5"/> one-point-seven-<pause dur="0.3"/>billion <pause dur="1.4"/> of these bacteria <pause dur="0.5"/> per <pause dur="0.2"/> hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="1.8"/> so that's <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> a relative <pause dur="0.2"/> measure <pause dur="0.7"/> of pollution for those two <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> river systems <pause dur="0.3"/> which are being used for totally different purposes of course <pause dur="0.9"/> in totally <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> different circumstances <pause dur="2.2"/> and there's a great improvement in this <pause dur="0.4"/> river <pause dur="0.8"/> in India because it was five-point-four-billion <pause dur="0.5"/> faecal coliform bacteria per hundred millilitres of water <pause dur="0.4"/> so it's gone to <pause dur="0.2"/> # less than half <pause dur="1.1"/> about a third <pause dur="13.0"/> so all sorts of waste will be <trunc>go</trunc> will be <pause dur="0.4"/> being produced <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> pumped out into this into this river of course <pause dur="1.0"/> people will be

washing in it <pause dur="0.9"/> # livestock would be <pause dur="0.2"/> drinking and being washed in it et cetera et cetera <pause dur="0.2"/> all sorts of activities being carried out <pause dur="2.4"/> okay but not a not a very healthy environment is it to be washing in and so on <pause dur="1.5"/> now you can imagine the health problems that accrue from that level of pollution <pause dur="3.0"/> okay thank you that's time for coffee obviously <pause dur="0.8"/> # let's just break for five minutes please because i do want to <pause dur="0.5"/> finish within <pause dur="0.4"/> half an hour or so <pause dur="1.3"/> okay so a quick comfort break for five minutes </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> so that was a quick look at # water resources <pause dur="14.1"/>

let's have a look at <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> ecological resources <pause dur="1.9"/> what do we mean by ecological resources <pause dur="0.7"/> here's a little definition <pause dur="3.1"/> all plant and animal resources in terms of individuals species communities habitats and ecosystems <pause dur="0.7"/> other than those managed specifically <pause dur="0.8"/> for financial gain <pause dur="1.6"/> <unclear>a</unclear> slightly sort of hazy definition <pause dur="2.1"/> but in other words commercial fish farms wouldn't come into this category <pause dur="1.8"/> commercial forest plantations wouldn't <pause dur="0.2"/> i guess come into this category <pause dur="1:04.6"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="15"/> this time just <pause dur="0.4"/> let's start with a little bit of <pause dur="0.2"/> simple little bit of data <pause dur="1.2"/> looking at # <pause dur="0.6"/> globally threatened animal species <pause dur="0.7"/> and i've just chosen three countries <pause dur="0.3"/> three very different countries <pause dur="0.5"/> Brazil the U-K and India <pause dur="4.9"/> and these are animal species that won't include insects <pause dur="4.3"/> so Brazil <pause dur="0.6"/> some three-thousand species known <pause dur="2.0"/> of which the U-N reckoned <pause dur="0.5"/> a hundred-and-five <pause dur="1.1"/> were threatened <pause dur="0.7"/> and the i think the definition of being threatened was <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/>

extinction <pause dur="0.5"/> # likely within the next ten years unless something was done <pause dur="5.0"/> the U-K <pause dur="1.7"/> relatively speaking not so species <pause dur="0.2"/> rich <pause dur="1.1"/> for these animal species three-hundred-and-thirty-five <pause dur="0.6"/> of which sixty-six <pause dur="0.2"/> of them <pause dur="0.3"/> were considered to be threatened <pause dur="1.3"/> and India again relatively species rich over two-thousand <pause dur="0.7"/> known species of which <pause dur="0.4"/> a hundred-and-seventy-eight <pause dur="3.4"/> were thought to be threatened <pause dur="3.0"/> and i don't know what message from from this little bit of data <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> sort of comes across to you but one of the things that <pause dur="0.4"/> comes across to me <pause dur="0.5"/> is that here we are in in the U-K <pause dur="0.4"/> in the developed world <pause dur="0.4"/> we're always talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> # dreadful things happening in other parts of the world and the loss of species the loss of rainforest <pause dur="0.3"/> and the effect on species et cetera in Brazil <pause dur="0.6"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> here we are with a relatively high proportion <pause dur="0.3"/> of our own animal species <pause dur="0.5"/> threatened <pause dur="0.7"/> by possible extinction <pause dur="0.5"/> so what that says to me is that maybe we ought to <pause dur="0.7"/> look at our own backyard and start doing some things in this

country <pause dur="0.5"/> as well <pause dur="0.7"/> which we are of course <pause dur="13.6"/> okay so why are <pause dur="0.2"/> ecological resources important to us <pause dur="0.7"/> what's their value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> why are <trunc>s</trunc> we so worried <pause dur="0.6"/> about # species becoming extinct <pause dur="0.4"/> habitats losing habitats and so on <pause dur="7.0"/> any ideas <pause dur="11.5"/> perhaps they're not perhaps we shouldn't bother <pause dur="0.3"/> who <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>cares<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> who cares if these species become extinct let's not waste resources worrying about them yeah <pause dur="2.6"/></u><u who="sm0653" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nm0638" trans="overlap"> does it matter if some obscure species in Brazil becomes extinct </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="sm0654" trans="pause"> it's all to do with the natural equilibrium</u> <pause dur="1.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> okay <pause dur="1.4"/> so we're worried then that <pause dur="0.2"/> we may disrupt the environment <pause dur="0.9"/> so we're very worried about environmental stability and sustainability <pause dur="4.0"/> the assumption being that <pause dur="0.6"/> species rich ecosystems <pause dur="0.4"/> are more stable <pause dur="1.1"/> ecosystems <pause dur="2.1"/> and if you start to lose species <pause dur="0.8"/> you're disrupting the ecosystem <pause dur="0.3"/> which may lead to environmental instability of <pause dur="0.3"/> one sort or another we're not quite sure <pause dur="2.3"/> and anyway in the long term it can't be sustainable can it to keep losing species <pause dur="0.2"/> all the time <pause dur="2.8"/> that's the argument <pause dur="1.2"/>

landscape an amenity aspect to many of these resources <pause dur="0.4"/> game reserves bring in tourists in Kenya or wherever <pause dur="0.6"/> # and so on often <pause dur="0.2"/> you know <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> these ecosystems mean that <pause dur="0.2"/> there's a nice landscape that we enjoy <pause dur="0.9"/> and so on <pause dur="5.0"/> you talked about <pause dur="0.2"/> # advances <pause dur="0.5"/> in medicine and so on well <pause dur="0.2"/> you know these species are an important source of genetic <pause dur="0.3"/> material they're genetic reserves <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe that elusive cure for a certain disease is <pause dur="0.8"/> # you know <pause dur="0.5"/> the secret is locked up in one of these species that are threatened <pause dur="3.0"/> or maybe there's some genetic material that we can use for something else <pause dur="0.8"/> who knows i mean these days with biotechnology <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> who knows what's going to be possible in the future <pause dur="0.4"/> this is one of our many areas of uncertainty for resource use isn't it <pause dur="0.2"/> technology <pause dur="3.7"/> okay education and <pause dur="0.7"/> research <pause dur="3.4"/> value to us <pause dur="1.6"/> and what do you think about this economists <pause dur="0.6"/> often talk about existence value <pause dur="1.6"/> and i question whether it <pause dur="2.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>itself<shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> exists <pause dur="0.4"/> # the idea of existence value that a species has a value to us <pause dur="1.5"/> just

because it exists <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't matter if if it doesn't have any of these <pause dur="1.1"/> benefits necessarily <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's important</u><u who="sm0657" trans="latching"> intrinsic worth </u> <pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm0638" trans="pause"> exactly has this intrinsic worth <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not because it has any <pause dur="0.5"/> real necessarily any tangible benefit to it <pause dur="1.0"/> we should keep it because it exists and we shouldn't get rid of it <pause dur="2.7"/> whether that is really <pause dur="1.0"/> just because it exists <pause dur="0.2"/> or actually whether it's because of <pause dur="0.5"/> one or more of these things <pause dur="1.4"/> yeah the possibility <pause dur="0.8"/> you know it's useful as a genetic reserve <pause dur="0.5"/> # maybe it contributes to environmental stability <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what i question i think <pause dur="3.9"/> i think <pause dur="0.2"/> probably what we're saying when we talk about existence value <pause dur="0.3"/> is that all species have a value to us <pause dur="1.8"/> because maybe <pause dur="1.2"/> it's important for environmental stability <pause dur="0.2"/> maybe in the future it could add to our direct returns <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe it could <pause dur="0.3"/> be important genetic material that we'll use in the future and so on <pause dur="2.3"/> but you will come across this this term existence value <pause dur="0.2"/> in the literature <pause dur="2.0"/> and i think in in a

future session you're probably going to talk about it a little bit more with with <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="12.4"/> okay so we've been getting into sort of looking at some data and <pause dur="0.3"/> considering the more practical aspects if you like <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # natural resource use <pause dur="0.4"/> and the environment <pause dur="0.7"/> # what i want to do now is to get back to a little bit of economics <pause dur="1.6"/> because one of the things that we've nearly that that we've never <pause dur="0.3"/> actually got straight <pause dur="1.5"/> is well what sort of economic framework <pause dur="0.4"/> do we need <pause dur="1.2"/> in order <pause dur="0.2"/> for us to # decide on <pause dur="0.4"/> the best use of resources <pause dur="2.3"/> <trunc>d</trunc> i didn't give this to you last time did i <pause dur="0.5"/> no <pause dur="1.3"/> it's just a copy of the overhead that i'm going to <pause dur="0.5"/> put up in the screen <pause dur="0.8"/> in a moment and it just saves you from having to get it down <pause dur="5.5"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> lots of take-aways let's pass them along please <pause dur="21.3"/> so let me remind you about some very basic economics <pause dur="1.0"/> that hopefully you haven't forgotten but i <pause dur="0.4"/> thought i ought to remind you anyway <pause dur="3.5"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> so now what we're trying to do is determine the optimum use <pause dur="1.1"/> of a resource <pause dur="1.5"/> and we assume that our aim is to

maximize the net benefit to society <pause dur="2.8"/> now we know that governments and so on don't necessarily actually have that aim but let's assume that that's what we want to do <pause dur="0.3"/> to maximize the net benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> to society <pause dur="0.3"/> from the use of our resource <pause dur="1.3"/> so on the Y-axis here <pause dur="0.4"/> we have <pause dur="0.5"/> the benefits and costs <pause dur="0.5"/> associated <pause dur="0.3"/> with using the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> in pounds <pause dur="4.5"/> on the X-axis we have the amount <pause dur="0.2"/> of the resource <pause dur="3.6"/> that we're using <pause dur="2.0"/> so if you look at <pause dur="0.6"/> the total <pause dur="0.2"/> social benefit curve <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> T-S-B total social benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> you can see <pause dur="0.9"/> that as we use more and more of the resource <pause dur="0.4"/> our total social benefit increases and increases <pause dur="0.8"/> i've assumed diminishing marginal returns <pause dur="0.3"/> in that it actually starts to tail off <pause dur="0.6"/> or diminishing utility <pause dur="1.3"/> that may not be true it could be a straight line <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't matter <pause dur="0.2"/> for this analysis <pause dur="2.9"/> okay so <pause dur="0.6"/> the benefit increases <pause dur="0.9"/> as we use more and more of the resource <pause dur="4.3"/> here we've got the costs <pause dur="0.2"/> associated with using the resource <pause dur="0.5"/> the costs of mining it <pause dur="1.5"/> using it to produce whatever we we

want from the resource energy from fossil fuels whatever <pause dur="0.8"/> and so here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> what i've called the total private cost so it's the cost to to industry <pause dur="1.0"/> of <pause dur="1.1"/> using the resource <pause dur="0.5"/> and here you can see again <pause dur="0.4"/> we've got increasing <pause dur="0.6"/> costs <pause dur="0.7"/> we we're assuming diminishing marginal returns increasing costs <pause dur="0.5"/> per unit <pause dur="0.2"/> of resource <pause dur="0.2"/> are assumed <pause dur="3.7"/> so the greatest benefit <pause dur="0.8"/> the greatest net benefit that we can achieve <pause dur="1.5"/> is the biggest difference isn't it between <pause dur="0.7"/> total social benefits <pause dur="0.5"/> and total social costs <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah that's the biggest net benefit <pause dur="1.6"/> so at this level here that is the optimum level <pause dur="0.4"/> of our resource <pause dur="1.9"/> that's the level at which we maximize the net benefit <pause dur="0.4"/> to society <pause dur="1.4"/> and if it was a private firm that we were talking about <pause dur="0.6"/> yeah that would be the profit maximizing position wouldn't it <pause dur="2.1"/> and of course the profit maximizing position <pause dur="0.4"/> is where <pause dur="0.4"/> marginal costs <pause dur="3.7"/> equal marginal benefit <pause dur="0.5"/> yeah so they're just the <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal curves <pause dur="1.0"/> straight lines in fact <pause dur="0.2"/> that go with these <pause dur="0.5"/> total curves <pause dur="1.2"/> so here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal social benefit curve <pause dur="1.3"/> yeah which is declining <pause dur="2.0"/> like a demand curve <pause dur="1.7"/> and here we have the marginal private cost curve <pause dur="1.1"/>

like a supply curve <pause dur="4.2"/> and here's our optimum level <pause dur="0.4"/> of resource and i've got here for example barrels of oil <pause dur="0.5"/> so at level Q that level of use of oil <pause dur="1.4"/> is where we maximize you can see here the net benefit to society <pause dur="1.1"/> and if we wanted to bring that allocation about <pause dur="0.8"/> the market would do it for us if it was a perfect market <pause dur="0.6"/> it would price <pause dur="0.4"/> these barrels of oil at P <pause dur="0.2"/> each <pause dur="1.6"/> yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> and that would be <pause dur="0.4"/> # a perfect allocation of resources <pause dur="2.7"/> maximize net benefit to society great <pause dur="0.3"/> easy <pause dur="5.2"/> the problem is as we said <pause dur="0.5"/> is that our simple economic framework <pause dur="1.0"/> has in the past <pause dur="0.5"/> failed to take account of things like environmental pollution <pause dur="2.3"/> these we said we consider as externalities <pause dur="0.7"/> to the production system <pause dur="1.7"/> so what happens if we <pause dur="1.5"/> try to take account of these <pause dur="1.6"/> externalities <pause dur="8.4"/><kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> what we're saying then <pause dur="1.3"/> is that our private cost curve <pause dur="0.9"/> the costs of getting that oil out of the ground <pause dur="0.4"/> and the costs of <pause dur="1.1"/>

getting it into a form where we can burn it in our cars and get energy <pause dur="0.2"/> for instance <pause dur="1.6"/> is actually not the true cost of using that resource <pause dur="2.2"/> because for instance <pause dur="1.8"/> our cars pollute the atmosphere <pause dur="1.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> an external <pause dur="0.6"/> cost <pause dur="0.5"/> is borne by third parties <pause dur="0.4"/> maybe you or i walking along <pause dur="0.2"/> inhaling fumes and our health suffers <pause dur="1.9"/> or maybe global warming <pause dur="0.4"/> whatever <pause dur="1.8"/> so there's an external cost <pause dur="0.8"/> that falls on other people in society <pause dur="2.0"/> than the oil companies <pause dur="0.3"/> and just the people that drive their cars there are other people that <pause dur="0.5"/> bear the costs <pause dur="0.2"/> as well <pause dur="1.4"/> so these external costs then <pause dur="0.2"/> have to be taken into account <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to get the total social cost <pause dur="0.4"/> of resource use <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than just the private cost <pause dur="2.0"/> so this green curve suitably green <pause dur="0.8"/> curve here <pause dur="3.0"/> has taken account of the negative externalities like environmental pollution <pause dur="0.4"/> associated with using the resource <pause dur="0.9"/> and you can see the cost curve <pause dur="0.6"/> has shifted upwards <pause dur="7.5"/> now if we use this cost curve <pause dur="0.3"/> instead of the private cost curve <pause dur="0.2"/> to look at the optimum use of our

resource <pause dur="0.6"/> you can see that the optimum <pause dur="0.5"/> changes <pause dur="1.1"/> and net benefit to society from using the resource <pause dur="0.3"/> is actually achieved at a lower level <pause dur="0.2"/> of resource use here <pause dur="1.0"/> than previously <pause dur="2.5"/> and if we look at the marginal <pause dur="0.3"/> cost and marginal benefit curves <pause dur="0.7"/> we can see that <pause dur="0.9"/> perhaps even more clearly <pause dur="4.9"/> so now we have the marginal <pause dur="0.2"/> social cost curve <pause dur="1.6"/> added <pause dur="0.7"/> to this diagram same diagram as before <pause dur="0.2"/> we've just added <pause dur="1.1"/> this green marginal social cost curve <pause dur="2.7"/> yeah which is the slope isn't it these marginal curves <pause dur="0.2"/> are the slope the rate of change <pause dur="0.4"/> of these total curves yeah <pause dur="0.8"/> so that's the slope <pause dur="0.5"/> of this curve <pause dur="3.2"/> yeah so you can see that the slope is <pause dur="1.1"/> increasing and hence this marginal social cost curve <pause dur="0.7"/> is increasing <pause dur="3.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the optimum use of our resource that was at Q <pause dur="0.8"/> now that we've taken account of the negative environmental externalities <pause dur="0.3"/> associated with the use of this resource <pause dur="0.4"/> our optimum <pause dur="0.2"/> is actually not at Q <pause dur="0.7"/> yeah we've been using too much of this resource <pause dur="0.2"/> it's actually <pause dur="0.4"/> here <pause dur="1.0"/> at Q-dashed <pause dur="0.2"/> in green <pause dur="4.9"/> so in

order <pause dur="0.3"/> this diagram is telling us in order <pause dur="0.3"/> to maximize the net benefit to society <pause dur="0.3"/> we need to cut back <pause dur="0.5"/> on current usage of oil <pause dur="0.3"/> and use a little bit less of it <pause dur="4.1"/> and again that point is shown <pause dur="0.9"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> where the marginal social cost curve <pause dur="0.9"/> cuts the marginal social benefit curve <pause dur="4.6"/> the other thing this diagram tells you <pause dur="0.8"/> is that where the price of oil <pause dur="0.2"/> before <pause dur="0.6"/> was price P <pause dur="1.1"/> if you want to bring about <pause dur="1.9"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> environmentally-friendly <pause dur="0.4"/> maximum <pause dur="0.3"/> benefit to society <pause dur="0.7"/> you've got to change the price of oil <pause dur="1.1"/> and the price that'll bring about this level of resource use <pause dur="0.5"/> again is where <pause dur="0.7"/> the marginal curves <pause dur="0.3"/> cross <pause dur="0.3"/> which this time now is P-dashed <pause dur="0.9"/> so this is telling you if you want to bring about <pause dur="0.6"/> this allocation of resources within society <pause dur="0.3"/> you're going to have to increase the price of oil <pause dur="0.4"/> to consumers <pause dur="0.4"/> from P <pause dur="0.4"/> to

P-dashed <pause dur="2.1"/> because the market won't do that <pause dur="0.3"/> the market will set the price at P <pause dur="2.3"/> so one of the things <pause dur="0.2"/> for instance that you might want to do <pause dur="0.2"/> is to place an environmental tax <pause dur="0.5"/> on oil <pause dur="0.4"/> so that the price people pay isn't P <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's P-dashed <pause dur="2.1"/> and that's is one of the things that <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> is going to talk to you about <pause dur="0.9"/> # in future weeks <pause dur="5.7"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/> are there any questions about that diagram i i think it's fairly simple and straightforward <pause dur="0.4"/> you should have seen diagrams like this before <pause dur="1.9"/> but are there any questions <pause dur="2.1"/> because it's important that <trunc>y</trunc> that you understand it at this simplistic stage <pause dur="0.3"/> before you do any further theory <pause dur="8.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> i can see you're totally exhausted from the experience of doing a bit more economic theory <pause dur="0.5"/> so i think let's call it a day shall we <pause dur="1.0"/> okay and next week <pause dur="0.4"/> will be will be <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/>